As in the days of Noah.....

baydoll

New Member
And the LAST group on your list: HUMAN

Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens



First: Homo Habilis

In June 1973, the national Geographic magazine pulbinshed an article that was devasting to the conventional ideas about human evolution. It reported a new find in Kenya, Africa by anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leading evolutionary expert on the so called Hominid ancestors of the homo sapiens. The discovery was called Skull 1470 for its catalong number in the Kenya national museum.

Leaky made and astounding challenge, highlighted prominently in bold letters by National Geographic: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.”

The anthropologist said this fossil was 2.8 million years old yet it belongs to man’s genus. In other words, Leakey claimed it was more man-like than any of the other near man relics on the chart. The problem was that the skull was found neneath vocanic ash that had been acceptably dated for years by evolutionists reckoning as 2.6 million yars old. That would make a human looking ancestor over a million years older than our nearest ape-like ancestor. It’s no wonder Leakey made the puzzling statement “It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings.”

And because of the skull’s “surprisingly large braincase,” Leakey shockingly admitted, “it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”

Keep in mind that the National Geographic Society is a major financial supporter of field explorations (including Leakey’s) to find fresh new speciments to put on the line up of man’s evolutionary origins. It is worth noting that they are willing to publish such discoveries with considerable fanfare even when they are controversial.

Let’s realize the implications of Leakey’s comments. He stated that the chart with which we have all become familiar with is now a notion left in ruins. The orderly sequence of evolutionary change apparently does not rate any better than a notion.

In his thoroughly researched book Bones of Contention, author Marvin Lubenow brings to light that the facial bones were not clearly connected enough to know for sure if the face should be flat like a human or with jaw extended like an ape. As he further pointed out, “Home habilis is a flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that can legitimately be called human, and other fossils that are definetly NOT HUMAN.”

Well now we have a problem. Evolutionists can’t have a candidate for a missing link that is admitted to have a skull qualifying as a modern man, but that dates back to over two and a half million years ago. This paradox continues for almost a decade.

Finally, in 1981, evolutionists came up with a technical way to adjust the the radiometric date and assign a revised age for the volcanic ash strata under which the skull was found. Now they are saying it less than two million years old and the othe homo habilis fossils are dated much younger. All of them are contemporary with the human looking characters called Homo erectus near the end of the chart.

Since Homo habilis physically looks like a true man, regardless of the age they assign it how can it be something evolving to man? What would they do if they found human looking bones in the same geologic age assigned to the dinosaurs? Will they push man’s origin back 100 million years or figure a way to reassign the age of rocks again? Just wait and you will learn about even more mysterious finds (mysterious only because they don’t fit the commonly accepted evolutionary beliefs about human beginnings.) Dennis R Peterson
(sorry no link as this is from his book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation which is AWESOME btw)

And the rest to follow....
 

baydoll

New Member
And the rest:

Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens




According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native.
Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .
The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197
The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)
The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.


Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199
Homo erectus AND THE ABORIGINES
The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.
Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus . The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man):

Homo erectus 'S SAILING CULTURE "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According to this article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists call Homo erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think of people who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive.
When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens , it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.200
It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way:
Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.201
The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens , but rather a race within Homo sapiens ." On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus , a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus , Homo Habilis , and Homo rudolfensis ). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history.


Darwinism Refuted.com
 

baydoll

New Member
So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:


SPECIES TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present

We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’ 'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”

We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.

And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN:

Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis ,
Homo sapiens

So what does your chart prove?

All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional.

In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.

There are no missing links.
 

tommyjones

New Member
So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:




We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’ 'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”

We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.

And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN:

Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis ,
Homo sapiens

So what does your chart prove?

All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional.

In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.

There are no missing links.

the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.

so how old was the earth of the bible again?

and did you ever find that bung or yours or are you still saying that since you can't see it it isn't there?
 

baydoll

New Member
the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.

So by all means provide us all those transitional fossils from monkeys to human.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
She didnt have a conclusion. Without an attempt to form her own independent thought, she instead copied and pasted, from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.

Evolution is bunk because God would not create a system that would make it necessary. This is actually contrary to what you, This_Person, has admitting to believe in.
It's very true that I don't believe in the young earth concept. I don't think the first few days reported in Genesis are literal 24 hour days, as there was no sun nor earth by which to measure normal "days" by our standards.

However, I wasn't referring to the site she was posting from, I was referring to her conclusions, from this post:
So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:

We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’ 'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”

We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.

And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN:

Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis ,
Homo sapiens

So what does your chart prove?

All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional.

In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.

There are no missing links.
Do you really feel her answers came from Science?
I think, regardless of the ideological bent of her source, there could be validity to her skepticism. I didn't do the research she did into where the fossils actually came from or mean (because, again, I see no reason to think the first human fossils could not be from Adam and Eve era, or even after that and we just don't have fossils found from the Adam and Eve era yet, etc., etc., from my previous posts); but I do think that it's likely, from my own previous looking into how many scientific discoveries go, that the idea that a handful of related bones from scattered areas are the basis of a single "conclusion". And, from my previous looking into things, I've seen huge gaping holes in the evolutionary chain, with the same idea posted here earlier - that "fer shur we're gonna find them suckers", the presumed links between what's been found.

So, that was where I was coming from.
This is no different than an Anti-McCain site posting greatness about Obama. Did you feel Fahrenheit 9/11 was an unbiased biography? Or do you realize that the the points in the movie were slanted, with competing evidence ignored and thrown because it didnt support the agenda?
All of this is true, that's why I asked, with genuine interest, as to what you thought of her conclusions. She seemed to be posting some interesting tidbits of fact regarding the source information of the evolutionary chain Tommy posted, so I was looking for either a "yeah, that's all true, but we still think it's the way it went", or "wow, I didn't realize what Tommy posted was so Fahrenheit 9/11ish in its source data" kind of response (if you follow what I mean).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.
Similarly, just because you find a web site that says it's true doesn't mean it is. Can you refute what she's saying - that basically what you posted represents all ape, all human, or scattered bits of unrelated and grossly incomplete bone fragments (nothing more than conjecture as to whether they even belonged to the same animal)?

I'm not arguing she's right, and I'm not arguing you're right. You stated a chain, she broke the links. Is she demonstratably wrong, or was your chain?
so how old was the earth of the bible again?
It doesn't say, and anything to the contrary is pure conjecture also.
 

baydoll

New Member
and did you ever find that bung or yours or are you still saying that since you can't see it it isn't there?

Did you ever find that evidence of yours proving that God didn't create all of this or are YOU still saying this entire world we live in from tiniest cell (jam packed with DNA) to the vast universe (with it's billions of stars and solar systems) all came into being from nothing since you can't see God so therefore He must not be there ?
 
Last edited:

baydoll

New Member
She didnt have a conclusion. Without an attempt to form her own independent thought, she instead copied and pasted, from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.


That wasn't my point. I posted information examining Tommy's chart showing another side of the story. Whomever is reading can draw their OWN intelligent conclusion from the information I posted. I leave it up to the reader. Unlike you, I think everybody is entitled to post and see ALL sides of things, not just the pro-darwinist, pro-evolutionary, anti-God sides.

from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.


Oh God forbid! What an awful horrible thing I did! :duh:

I could just as easily say the same thing about anything you or Tommy post. I could say we can't believe anything you say or post because you are both darwinists anti-God/anti-Christian.


And so what if I posted articles that were not pro-evolution pro-darwinist anti-God? Does that make the information I posted false? The truth (according to you and Tommy) doesn't lie in what I post but in the quality of the evidence in those articles. WHICH the two of you won't even examine. You dismiss it out of hand. So how do you know if what I posted is valid or not? You don't. Instead, you give us YOUR opinions those articles are false even though you didn't read them.


So how do you know the information I posted is wrong? Have you've gone through them point by point and refuted them yet? If not, what are you waiting for?
 
Last edited:

tommyjones

New Member
That wasn't my point. I posted information examining Tommy's chart showing another side of the story. Whomever is reading can draw their OWN intelligent conclusion from the information I posted. I leave it up to the reader. Unlike you, I think everybody is entitled to post and see ALL sides of things, not just the pro-darwinist, pro-evolutionary, anti-God sides.




Oh God forbid! What an awful horrible thing I did! :duh:

I could just as easily say the same thing about anything you or Tommy post. I could say we can't believe anything you say or post because you are both darwinists anti-God/anti-Christian.


And so what if I posted articles that were not pro-evolution pro-darwinist anti-God? Does that make the information I posted false? The truth (according to you and Tommy) doesn't lie in what I post but in the quality of the evidence in those articles. WHICH the two of you won't even examine. You dismiss it out of hand. So how do you know if what I posted is valid or not? You don't. Instead, you give us YOUR opinions those articles are false even though you didn't read them.


So how do you know the information I posted is wrong? Have you've gone through them point by point and refuted them yet? If not, what are you waiting for?

i read your articles, and i found them to be biased.....

additionally they didn't present any real evidence to support their opinions.

and so how old do you think the earth is? an opinion and how you formed it, please.
 

baydoll

New Member
I believe he was asking you for your opinion
__________________

No he wasn't. He asked what the Bible said about the age of the earth. I told him it wasn't in there. If you think I'm wrong, then by all means show us where it says in the Bible the exact age of this earth.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You do not prove a negative, this is a basic concept in a conversation or discussion.

The rules of logic (and science) dictate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is nonsensical, and contrary to rational thought, since there are numerous religions that believe differently than yours.

Without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. The antithesis of this is Faith.

Every argument a "believer" make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist, except the demand that your statements have the same basis of logic as ours.

During the course of a discussion, a person (Atheist) who rejects an assertion (Belieiver - "God did this") does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Basically that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. That is Faith but not logicically thinking based on facts.

It is not possible to prove that God does not exist or God created "this". Since “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. You can not prove the non-existence of mystical beings. As such the fallacy of using :

A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God didnt (insert something here) – no one even knows what God is supposed to be

In the context of a conversation the Onus is on the one making the assertion, You must prove God did (insert something here)
Using this criteria, would you then agree that abiogenesis and human evolution, as taught, should not be believed, as the only thing backing them up are conjecture, and not proof?
 

Xaquin44

New Member
NS, you know he's just going to go on and froth 'WELL CREATIONISM IS E THOERY TOO LOLZ Y CAN"T IT BE IN TEH SIENCE CLASS 2???!?'
 
Top